• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Crime In Maplewood

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
I don't want to change this thread.
While the CA statute has it written in that they can inspect, a check over on the CA forum seems to point out that this is a 4th amendment rights violation.
The analogy is that they could write a statute that allows the police to inspect the interior of your house to make sure doesn't have any high cap mags inside. Still fails the 4th amendment test.


Does it matter?
Do you want the anti's stirred up like they are over it in cali trying to violate 2a, 4a rights?

We have some great laws in mo, that changed a lot over the last ten, pushing ones agenda in a real in your face manner has repercussions that have been seen elsewhere and are being seen in Maplewood. Sitting around ways to skirt the laws, the proposed laws is a real good way to get the anti's fired up to work harder at the state level.

We lost em a little at a time, we got em back a little at the same time, no reason to shift the tides back.

Boycott Maplewood and their business's and let em know, sure. Disable a firearm and sport it around so you draw unnecessary attention within a community that has already spoken clearly they do not want this and are willing to trample your rights to prevent it, well that is just kind of stupid.

The dog has been poked, its awake now, lets not give it rabies and watch it run wild, let it lay its head down and go back to sleep.

If we can keep anyone from getting exploited, perhaps ext year something like HB841 can get through and then the following year something that eliminates the requirement to pay for it comes along, but as far as this year goes, its over, the legislators KNOW the dog is awake and they are NOT going to get bit.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
I am going and I will speak! Please remember dress appropriately and don't be abusive, it will only work against us. If you want to "PROTEST" wait til after the vote and do it outside! The law does not go into effect till 12 days after it is signed. This is the last chance for us to prevent this.

Come out, speak appropriately and let's see if we can prevent this "Infringement" of our 2A rights. The odds are against us but you never know. Perhaps reason can overcome a lack of informatiomn or incorrect information.

Unless I am forced to work, I am speaking.

Protesting outside would have nothing but a bunch of media spinning it into something it never was, the protest has little if any point and will just fuel the fire that is already burning.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
Lets poke that dog!!

Let us look at the history of poking the "dog".

Pilgrams...they came here why?

Boston Tea Party...protesting what?

First shot at Concord...what was that all about?

MLK....if he didn't poke the dog then who did?

I say poke it, I say kick it...

If they want to pass a law based on fear then go to it.....the constitution is what it is....it will not change...and if they decide to change it, then 1776 will repeat.

I am not saying we need a "rebellion" but we do need to stand up...so if poking a rabid dog is what it takes, then so be it.
 

xc9subcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
106
Location
Secure Undisclosed
Consider that the 3 minute limit is per speaker. Coordination between each speaker could allow a more effective presentation, allowing more total time for each point made.

Potential talking points:

  1. Hastily drawn up and passed laws are usually bad laws. Since time usually allows for calmer heads to prevail, it is recommended that the city table this proposal for future analysis.
  2. OC carry has been legal in the state of MO for decades. Most towns and cities do not ban OC. Consider the possibilities of the unintended consequesnces the proposed ban would have.
  3. The laws of the state of MO allow for OC. While the laws do allow for a city ban on functional OC, they do not allow for a ban on non-functional OC. Passing this ban could lead to unneeded expensive legal complications for the city, while also placing the police into a difficult legal situation as they try to enforce the new city ordinance. It is unfair to the police to require them to take on the added responsibility of enforcing an unneeded law. It would be simpler to educate the police that OC is legal in MO. This would eliminate unneeded police responses to MWAG calls.
  4. In light of Heller and McDonald, the plain reading of the MO constitution - "Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." is that the OC of a firearm is a protected right. The provision of RSMO 21.750 (3) that allows the city to ban OC is sure to be challenged in court, leading to unneccessary legal cost to the city during tough economic times.
  5. Alienating law abiding citizens by passing hopolophobic laws will likely result in economic boycotts of the city, where sales tax revenue is crucial to the city in providing adequate services to it's residents.

Please add to the list.
 
Last edited:

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
Unless I am forced to work, I am speaking.

Protesting outside would have nothing but a bunch of media spinning it into something it never was, the protest has little if any point and will just fuel the fire that is already burning.

I agree, and if anyone wants to "protest" do it AFTER the vote. It will get you nothing except media coverage, which does no one any good.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
I can't edit if I would because that is not worth repeating. Stating you long for war will do nothing but prove to the antigunner that they are justified attempts to disarm you. Might want to practice 1a.
Let us look at the history of poking the "dog".

Pilgrams...they came here why?

Boston Tea Party...protesting what?

First shot at Concord...what was that all about?

MLK....if he didn't poke the dog then who did?

I say poke it, I say kick it...

If they want to pass a law based on fear then go to it.....the constitution is what it is....it will not change...and if they decide to change it, then 1776 will repeat.

I am not saying we need a "rebellion" but we do need to stand up...so if poking a rabid dog is what it takes, then so be it.
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
[*]The laws of the state of MO allow for OC. While the laws do allow for a city ban on functional OC, they do not allow for a ban on non-functional OC. Passing this ban could lead to unneeded expensive legal complications for the city, while also placing the police into a difficult legal situation as they try to enforce the new city ordinance. It is unfair to the police to require them to take on the added responsibility of enforcing an unneeded law. It would be simpler to educate the police that OC is legal in MO. This would eliminate unneeded police responses to MWAG calls.

This is where I was going with bringing up the "non-functioning firearm". If they are worried about seeing firearms, this law will not solve it and cause even more confusion among their cops.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
Fail!!

(a) A person commits the crime of peace disturbance if: (1) He unreasonably and knowingly disturbs or alarms another person by: c. Threatening to commit a felonious act against any person under circumstances which are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat may be carried out;

I am a reasonable person...but if I have FEAR..that you are a smoker and therefore I can assume that you have a lighter or matches....I can then assume that you are an arsonist?

I am a reasonable person...but if I have FEAR...that because you wear camouflage, I can then assume that you are a right wing extremist?

I am a reasonable person...but if I have FEAR....that you are wearing a turban, I can then assume you are a terrorist, bent on blowing up the country?

Just because a reasonable person may FEAR something...does not lead to "circumstances" which this ordinance is applying to....

What we need is reasonable LEO and City Gov's....not laws that curtail "reasonable" law-abiding citizens.
 
Last edited:

xc9subcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
106
Location
Secure Undisclosed
I doubt the judge would tell the LEO anything. He would probably let the attorneys ask probative questions. If the attorneys didn't ask a question that allows the judge to get an answer to a question he has, then I would expect a judge to ask the question himself. The LEO would be informed as to the question of what is reasonable when the judge issues his order. That is where the lesson is learned.
 

sohighlyunlikely

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
724
Location
Overland, Missouri, USA
Maplewood is starting to look like an unsafe to live.

Since the banning of open carry in Maplewood 4 months ago. In the city limits of Maplewood there has been 4 criminals found to be in illegal possession of concealed guns. 2 of them which were found to also have drugs. 1 of them appears to be a drug dealer.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...fa-0017a4a78c22.html?appSession=5363853445795

36 Burglary/Robbery
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...fa-0017a4a78c22.html?appSession=4753853691664

87 Assaults
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...a-0017a4a78c22.html?appSession=93638538301079

Not even mentioning the 100's of other crimes they had. They have made legal Open Carry-ers unwelcome and invited criminals to prey upon their citizens.

Doc
 

Tony4310

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
474
Location
Florissant, MO
I refuse to go to MW anymore. Let the criminals have the place. The city made it's decision and now must suffer the consequences now. Now we all know they'll place the blame on everyone else.
 

sohighlyunlikely

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
724
Location
Overland, Missouri, USA
Maplewood invites crime.

I refuse to go to MW anymore. Let the criminals have the place. The city made it's decision and now must suffer the consequences now. Now we all know they'll place the blame on everyone else.

The funny part is in 2010 when Open Carry is completely legal in Maplewood. There was no, nada, none, 0 weapons arrests. Now that they have banned Open Carry there, they have about 1 weapons arrest or report a month. Congrats Maplewood, You should just put it up on the sign at your city limits. "Welcome to Maplewood, We Love our criminals"

Doc
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
The funny part is in 2010 when Open Carry is completely legal in Maplewood. There was no, nada, none, 0 weapons arrests. Now that they have banned Open Carry there, they have about 1 weapons arrest or report a month. Congrats Maplewood, You should just put it up on the sign at your city limits. "Welcome to Maplewood, We Love our criminals"

Doc

I assume you'll point allof this out to the good folks in ollivette?
I'll be there with a few things to say myself!
 
Top